Advertisements
NOMENCLATURE OF INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CODE NOMENCLATURE OF INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION 1 GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF 2 VACATING STAY 3 EARLY HEARING APPLICATION 5 INTERVENTION APPLICATION 6 ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES 7 […]
Sexual harassment at the place of work
There is no restricted definition or specific limited of meaning the expression “sexual harassment”. Harassment of a lady by using a particular language or certain gestures or by stating a particular fact, […]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. H.C. GOEL
Article 311 consists of two sub-articles and their effect is no longer in doubt. The question about the safeguards provided to the public servants in the matter of their dismissal, removal or […]
Method of Inquiry in Sexual Harassment case as laid down by Delhi High Court
Primarily, in a sexual harassment complaint, the committee has to verify and analyse the capability of the aggrieved to depose before them fearlessly without any intimidation. If the Committee is of the view that the aggrieved is a feeble and cannot withstand any cross examination, the Committee can adopt such other measures to ensure that the witnesses statement is contradicted or corrected by the delinquent in other manner. The fair opportunity, therefore, has to be understood in the context of atmosphere of free expression of grievance. If the Committee is of the view that the witness or complainant can freely depose without any fear, certainly, the delinquent can be permitted to have verbal cross examination of such witnesses. In cases, where the Committee is of the view that the complainant is not in a position to express freely, the Committee can adopt such other method permitting the delinquent to contradict and correct either by providing statement to the delinquent and soliciting his objections to such statement.
Pragya Singh Chandrapalsingh vs The State Of Maharashtra
in our considered opinion, if both the Reports of ATS and NIA are considered conjointly, so far as the Appellant is concerned, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusation made against her are prima facie true. Once it is held so, then the benefit of bail cannot be withheld to the Appellant, even if the offences alleged against her by ATS are grave and serious one.
Sadhvi Pragyasingh Chandrapal Singh Thakur NIA Court Order
Accused No.1 Pragyasingh Chandrapalsingh Thakur @ Swami Purna Chetnanand Giri, No.4 Major Ramesh Shivji Upadhyay, No.5 Sameer Sharad Kulkarni, No.6 Ajay @ Raja Eknath Rahirkar, No.9 Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, No.10 Sudhakar Udaybhan Dhar Dwivedi @ Swami Amrutanand Dev Tirth and accused No.11 Sudhakar Onkarnath Chatruvedi are hereby discharged from the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. They are also discharged from the offences punishable under section 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as well as offence punishable under section 3, 5 and 25 of Arms Act 1959.
Chanakya Neeti [Sanskrit]
प्रणम्य शिरसा विष्णुं त्रैलोक्याधिपतिं प्रभुम् । नानाशास्त्रोद्धृतं वक्ष्ये राजनीतिसमुच्चयम् ॥ ०१-०१ अधीत्येदं यथाशास्त्रं नरो जानाति सत्तमः । धर्मोपदेशविख्यातं कार्याकार्यं शुभाशुभम् ॥ ०१-०२ तदहं सम्प्रवक्ष्यामि लोकानां हितकाम्यया । येन विज्ञातमात्रेण सर्वज्ञात्वं प्रपद्यते ॥ […]
Reserve Bank of India (Prevention of Market Abuse) Directions, 2019
These Directions shall apply to transactions of all participants in markets for financial instruments but shall exclude transactions executed through the recognized stock exchanges under and in accordance with the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Board of India. These Directions shall not apply to the Bank and the Central Government in furtherance of monetary policy, fiscal policy or other public policy objectives.
RBI releases draft “Enabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox”
A regulatory sandbox (RS) usually refers to live testing of new products or services in a controlled/test regulatory environment for which regulators may (or may not) permit certain regulatory relaxations for the limited purpose of the testing. The RS allows the regulator, the innovators, the financial service providers (as potential deployers of the technology) and the customers (as final users) to conduct field tests to collect evidence on the benefits and risks of new financial innovations, while carefully monitoring and containing their risks. It can provide a structured avenue for the regulator to engage with the ecosystem and to develop innovation-enabling or innovation-responsive regulations that facilitate delivery of relevant, low-cost financial products.
